You pretty accurately described what I was getting at, but I guess maybe
I don't understand what you were proposing then.  Wouldn't your solution
end up requiring you to have two complete sets of data anyway?  



Eric Pankoke

Founder

Point Of Light Software

http://www.polsoftware.com/



-----Original Message-----
From: %%email.bounce%% [mailto:%%email.bounce%%] On Behalf Of Jonathan
Carse
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 12:19 AM
To: Conduit Developer Forum
Subject: Re: Performing fast sync with Access database



If I understand correctly, isn't that just a more complex way of keeping
a dirty bit?

If your suggested tblLastSyncTable holds IDs of records that were
changed since the last sync (this also means that this table will be
cleared after each sync), that means I will have to insert these IDs
manually after each update.
That is something I wish to avoid because of the large amount of
databases and the large amount of code modifications that will need to
take place.

But maybe I misunderstood your suggestion. If that is the case please
clarify...?

Thanks for the help.



2008/2/12, Eric Pankoke <epankoke@comc...>:

If you're considering keeping two sets of data on the PC side, why not
have the "active" database and a set of tables that only keep records
that have changed since the last sync?  When you update the main tables,
also add the record to the update version of the table.  Then you just
do "SELECT * FROM tblCurrentTable WHERE uniqueId IN (SELECT uniqueId
FROM tblLastSyncTable).  Of course I realize this won't work if your
tables don't have some sort of unique indentifier.



Eric Pankoke

Founder

Point Of Light Software

http://www.polsoftware.com/



--
For information on using the ACCESS Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe,
please see http://www.access-company.com/developers/forums/

--
For information on using the ACCESS Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see http://www.access-company.com/developers/forums/